Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 3
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nyambi Nyambi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing here amounts to notability . local sources only, and no notable roles. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an unusual occasion when I have to disagree with DGG's characterization of the available sources. He has a significant supporting role on a multi-year prime time network series, as well as notable stage performances (for example, Caliban in a 2008 Classic Stage Company production of The Tempest drew substantive comments from The New York Times[1], Variety [2], The Star Ledger[3], and Associated Press [4]) and multiple substantial newspaper profiles (newspapers in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Los Angeles are now cited in the article) about him. In my view all this adds up to a pretty clear showing of notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neil Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Oh fuddle duddle. I deleted this page as a G4, when that probably was not the best option. Hurst may now have achieved notability. I am neutral. Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Neil Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous versions of this article have been deleted for lack of notability, I believe that now with weekly television appearances as comedy sidekick on Family Fortunes, which are linked to on through the references, Hurst has gained notoriety. This will also be the case once his character appears in the second sereis of The Syndicate which begins tonight on BBC One. Local news would also have me believe that a brand new series for ITV is in the pipeline for Hurst I would ask that the article remains on Wikipedia. Psnoobs 13:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- looks like a very minor actor as yet. As far as I recall, being a professional actor is not enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and the result of every previous nomination for this page was also delete. SalHamton (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Still not notable. In The Syndicate (TV series), he's in one episode and not listed in either the main or supporting cast in the article here (the IMDb listing for this is alphabetical). Something on the local news about something "in the pipeline" is not exactly WP:RS. As for being Vernon Kay's new "sidekick" on FF? A few brief appearances when showing spot prizes which were, according to the local paper article referenced, all filmed in one day. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Priya Ravichandran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unremarkable mid level police officer,some of he references given are not corresponding to her. Uncletomwood (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think there is enough mention of her in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. With the two awards she may also meet WP:ANYBIO but I can't be sure how notable those awards are in India. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Suyogtalk to me! 13:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain why you want it to be deleted? --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO, we would be setting the bar for notability too low by including this BLP.Sesamevoila (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Two awards including the Presidential award. Also see, coverages in notable and reliable newspapers/sites like New Indian Express, The Hindu, Global Adjustment Blog, Alpha Time, Deccan Chronicle. There might be more information/articles in Tamil language world web. --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanford Hall (University of Notre Dame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable residence for under 300 people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Edge3 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame, nothing to merge, already there. J04n(talk page) 01:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dillon Hall (University of Notre Dame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable residence for barely over 300 people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Edge3 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame, nothing to merge, already there. J04n(talk page) 01:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keough Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable residence for under 300 people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Edge3 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame, nothing to merge, already there. J04n(talk page) 01:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Welsh Family Hall (University of Notre Dame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable residence for just 262 people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame. Edge3 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame, nothing to merge, already there. J04n(talk page) 01:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Games Cabin (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This topic appears to fail WP:WEBCRIT, the criteria for web-specific content on Wikipedia. Source searches in Google News archives and Google Books have not provided coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only source is the website itself and we are not being honest with our readers that the only source has conflict of interest per Wikipedia:Third-party sources#Non-independent sources. The subject does not seem to be notable. Per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in relaibel sources for this games website launched only 5 months ago. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Uberaccount (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Wheaton College Conservatory of Music. Most favour outright deletion, but as they're mentioned at Wheaton College Conservatory of Music, redirection for ease of searchability seems the way to go. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- R. Edward Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTABILITY not fully asserted, and certainly not established Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it appear that this is a run of the mill organist/professor. Fails WP:PROF as far as I can tell. I am willing to change my mind if anyone can find more sources or find awards he's won. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wheaton College Conservatory of Music, already mentioned there, agree that he is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone page. J04n(talk page) 22:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest#Results. MBisanz talk 21:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gerald "Jerry" Kilcourse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think the hotdog eating contest winners are sufficiently notable. if necessary a blurb can be merged into the Nathan's Hotdog Contest article as a section, but standalone it fails BLP criteria Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge his records to Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest#Results. (It doesn't fail BLP because he's dead, Jams.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I use BLP for shorthand for biographies without even realizing it... that's not the basis for my nom anyway. Shadowjams (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above since the whole article and fame is connected to the contest. SalHamton (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Nine consecutive wins in the Super Bowl of hot dog eating--that makes him Best In His Field, which is Notable. The article mentions a controversy that caused him to leave competitive eating - I'd like to know more about what the controversy was. Finally many of the more recent competitors--not winners, just competitors--have their own articles, and I don't believe it's fair to penalize him just because (a) he competed in the 50's, or (b) because they didn't have 10 sports channels at the time to cover such events. Listmeister (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. I know about WP:OSE, I refer you to Nutshell Bullet Point Two: "When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.")
- Redirect to Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest. I am very suprised that I was unable to find anything in Google News or Google Books serching 'Kilcourse hot dog'. I would have thought that he would have been covered somewhere. Since notability is determined by the coverage not the achievement this should not remain as a stand alone page but a redirect is certainly acceptable. J04n(talk page) 10:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary, but sometimes it's slow in coming. There is a systemic bias in favor of recent events because the volume of coverage is so much greater. In this case, the achievement does determine the notability. When they show this event on ESPN 360, they're gonna mention this guy because he holds the record for most consecutive wins. Besides, Ripley's Believe it or Not reported it, that's coverage.Listmeister (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 01:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jiri Priban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability doesn't seem to be asserted or established Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, BLPPROD which was just removed should have stayed on the page, still no sources. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep after Vejvančický's rewrite - filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the person's own webpage is not enough sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a highly sought-after political commentator, appears regularly in the Czech media. I've expanded the article and added missing sources. Please, note that the profile at the Portal of Czech Literature and the (very interesting) article published by Týden are independent sources covering his career and activities and were not written by him. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW withdrawn by nominator with strong keep consensus. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Book theft from libraries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seriously? Do we really need articles so specific that they go right down to a particular type of theft? Theft is theft. This is not really needed in my opinion, but doesn't appear to fall under CSD for anything. So, I'll leave it here for you. Humblesnore (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn - please close. Humblesnore (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I met a woman once who'd studied at Oxford, and talked about being searched on the way out of the Bodleian Library every day to make sure she hadn't cut out any pages from books. She said that in some cases a single page could sell for thousands. So, I think it's possible that there's a noteworthy article to be had here. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any potential there to merge it into Theft as a subsection? Humblesnore (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to be a WP:FORK from Book store shoplifting Roodog2k (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's now renamed Library theft, which remains a major problem. It's even generated headlines, as demonstrated by the incidents I added.- Gilliam (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to understand. It's Theft. Regardless of whether it's from a library, a shop, or HM The Queen, it's still theft - it's so insignificant on its own that it doesn't require an individual article. It could safely be merged into Theft or deleted. Humblesnore (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm surprised the topic doesn't seem to be in Wikipedia already. Plenty of sources such as Using the Internet to Report Book and Manuscript Thefts and Guardian article from a quick Google search. The problems of libraries are distinctive enough that this article should stand alone from the general Theft - as do all the various articles listed there as "See also" (Art theft, Laptop theft etc). Libraries are not insignificant! PamD 22:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This is a major issue.[5][6] "Typically, libraries lose between 5 and 10 % of their collection annually to theft and mutilation." Library theft should be renamed Theft from libraries (nobody's trying to heist an entire library AFAIK). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Of course it is a form of theft, Humblesnore, but other forms of theft such as Shoplifting, Embezzlement and Robbery appropriately have articles. The case of Stephen Blumberg shows that much of it is caused by a severe psychological disorder, a blend of Bibliomania and Kleptomania. This is an encyclopedia topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - because the non-retail nature of the product makes it unique and the coverage of the subject in particular makes it notable, I think. It's obviously a recognised institutional problem which has been the catalyst for a number of initiatives/ideas/studies aimed at curbing this particular crime. Graffiti is a form of vandalism and robbery is a form of theft. But I think there's a place for all of those and for this article too. Stalwart111 07:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of media coverage.[7][8][9] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Astor House Hotel (Shanghai). Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Richards' Hotel and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I started editing this and realized I'd seen it all before: this was split off from Astor House Hotel (Shanghai), on which it leans for notability. That Astor article's section has, in the meantime, been pruned somewhat, and this current article, with its excessive amount of trivia sourced mostly to primary sources, is excessively redundant to that article. To put it another way, this place itself is not notable, unless it's in the history of the Astor hotel--where it warrants a mention rather than almost 40k. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 19:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I agree with the nominator that the amount of (impressively well-referenced, by the way) detail on this page is overwhelming, but there's still some useful information to be found, which can be added to the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai)-article. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep'. Wrong namespace. Use miscellany for deletion if you want to delete a talk page.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 19:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk:List of London school bus routes (edit | [[Talk:Talk:List of London school bus routes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. The article is purely a directory of primary source data and lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and these routes are not even public transport as the public cannot generally use them. They are private contractual arrangements between education authorities and bus companies and no more notable for Wikipedia than a list of Tesco delivery routes. Charles (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep you nominated the talk page. ;-) Roodog2k (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Khursheed Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article creator has only provided non-independent sources, so no notability is established. The article is also a BLP violation. On a sidenote, the article creator also appears to have a COI and may be creating the article for marketing purposes (a quick reverse image search on google images shows that the article creator may be the article subject's advertiser: http://www.businefieds.com/showlistings/Vkd0Rk9WQlJQVDA9). Gold Standard 18:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. No mention in reliable sources. --Drm310 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with above and with nominator. Star767 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus I wonder about the copyright status of uploaded picture. Star767 23:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis R. Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Article references are an obit and a couple from his own website. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Author of two books, for which I can find no holdings on WorldCat whatsoever, and very little in the way of basic notability for the author or his work. One of the references given is his obituary, and the last two (one of which doesn't even mention him) are to what wouldn't exactly call reliable. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a link to a book he co-authored on WorldCat: http://www.worldcat.org/title/living-toad-free-overcoming-resistance-to-motivation/oclc/74455728&referer=brief_results Also, a link to his thesis ( http://www.worldcat.org/title/education-and-the-development-or-diminishment-of-personal-integrity-within-the-individual/oclc/17886892&referer=brief_results ) and another one of his books ( http://www.worldcat.org/title/the-three-little-pigs-in-a-postmodern-world/oclc/425680370&referer=brief_results )--The Philosophical INFP 21:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Philosophical INFP (talk • contribs)
- I know where the books are, my point is that they show no holdings whatsoever (or few enough of them to not really matter). As the article's creator, do you have anything more substantive than what's in the article right now, that could help establish notability? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a link to a book he co-authored on WorldCat: http://www.worldcat.org/title/living-toad-free-overcoming-resistance-to-motivation/oclc/74455728&referer=brief_results Also, a link to his thesis ( http://www.worldcat.org/title/education-and-the-development-or-diminishment-of-personal-integrity-within-the-individual/oclc/17886892&referer=brief_results ) and another one of his books ( http://www.worldcat.org/title/the-three-little-pigs-in-a-postmodern-world/oclc/425680370&referer=brief_results )--The Philosophical INFP 21:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Philosophical INFP (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rader is off the radar. Yes, he published two books, but neither of them meets the requirements of WP:BK. He utterly fails WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There appears to be little agreement on whether this constitutes an event of encyclopedic worth or simply a fleeting news story. I'd suggest that time will tell - particularly if this incident fades from the public consciousness, a renomination in 6 months or so may bring more clarity. ~ mazca talk 00:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Muslim Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies here, as well as WP:ORG for a gang that apparently has been active since the beginning of this year. The article is about the gang, but it provides no information about it, or indication as to its notability, only news reports of actions allegedly attributed to them. This is not enduring or encyclopedic, at least not yet. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The patrol was notable and covered by international press, and of course, all English media outlets. Al Jazeera, NY Daily, Global Post, Russian Times, Times of India, Jerusalem Post, Herald Sun (Aus). A Google search brings thousand of results. Trichinosis (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very much a one-time-only event. Indeed NOTNEWS and misses WP:ORG, as the nom says. Perhaps this will change in the future, but I can't tell because i just dropped my crystal ball. --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It was in various newspapers but that was only for a brief time-span. This isn't an official, organised or ongoing "gang" like others elsewhere and abroad; it is just 5 men in a one-time-only event. I agree: Delete: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ORG. Rushton2010 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This has been a major news story and was spoken about fr several weeks if not 2 months. It was not a tiny incident. It has aslos pawned documentatries. Meets gng. It is also continually spoken about in sources about other topics. Pass a Method talk 08:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the above editor has moved the article to a new title: Muslim Patrol incident. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This local event was perhaps newsworthy, but I do not see any evidence that it was sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia. Peacock (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Besides the sources given in the article, (Telegraph, Herald Sun, Guardian, Sunday Times, BBC, International Business Times, etc) there are further news articles in Al Jazeera, WashingtonPost, Cavalier Daily , etc etc. The scope is larger and some of the articles more positive than this Wikipedia article, but this article is the start of a real phenomenon that has been around awhile and is likely to continue. We need to enlarge and expand it, not delete it. Opportunidaddy (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- My reaction is that this is a gang of thugs trying to impose their will on British citizens. However there is a phenomenon of some Muslims seeking to assert that some areas of UK are "Muslim Areas", where Muslim rules rather than British law should apply. There may be a case for a wider article to be created of which this and Muslim Patrol incident provide an example. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. There is perhaps an opportunity for a more general article and this incident could be a short example in that one. Despite all the breathless "keep" !votes here, I have yet to see a coherent argument for lasting encyclopedic value. --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For Closing admin -- That article should suffer the same fate as this article whatever it is. If this one is kept, the other should be redirected to this (or vice versa). If this is deleted, so should the other, as an attempt to get around the AFD procedure. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Widely covered by international media and the incident provoked a lot of discussion and debate. Crystalfile (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While it does seem to be a one-time event, coverage seems considerable enough to render it a worthy article. It's also hard to say where else it could possibly be merged were that a viable suggestion, but I think the article as it is scrapes by WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Macro-haplogroup A(X-BT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article per its new name has become about a meta-haplogroup. Because verifiable scientific data is difficult to track on meta groups, all such pages should be covered by the Y-Chromosome section of the Haplogroup and Y-chromosomal Adam pages. There is just not enough real material otherwise. RebekahThorn (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am afraid I don't understand; you are asserting that because the relative ordering of some branches of the Y phylogenetic tree have changed, all haplogroup A-related information has suddenly become non-notable and what little remains should be merged into more general Y-haplogroup articles? With the changes in phylogeny, rearrangement of the material into for example A0 and A1 articles (and perhaps A00 if the Mendez article is accepted into the mainstream), could be justified, But outright deletion, per WP:PRESERVE, is the wrong approach. Update: changing recommendation from 'comment' to 'keep', as I still do not see any policy-based rationale for deletion of notable A-related information. Notability is not temporary. --Mark viking (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Background: Recently, last month in fact, haplogroup A00 was discovered, a haplogroup widely divergent from all other Y-chromosome haplogroups. My comment: When I saw this news--it was on Wikipedia's main page--I went looking for more information. It wasn't the first time I'd looked at the page, either, because I'm very interested in this topic. Now, this field is growing and changing and being refined all the time, and each time I'd go back to these pages I'd find something new and interesting. It does not make sense to delete the article just because the information contained therein keeps changing, that's the nature of the topic. I would like to see even more pages detailing more branches of the tree. Listmeister (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Listmeister[reply]
- Keep and close debate per WP:SNOW. Oudated information is a reason to move, merge, or edit, but not to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But split cause you don't want to lose history Nottruelosa (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand, scientists made errors, but we can't fix that right now. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would certainly be worthwhile to split the group into several articles. That would be far, far better than a delete which would remove so much information from Wikipedia. Even renaming it "non-cladic term of convenience Haplogroup 'A'" or something would be better than deleting. I'd do the splitting, but I don't think I know enough about the topic. But I'd be happy to help, tell me what you need done, and I'll see what I can do. BTW, I think the article makes it clear that it's not all male mammals, it's all humans not in BT that are in group A. Listmeister (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand, scientists made errors, but we can't fix that right now. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Sorcha Faal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No verifiable high-quality sources (of WP:BLP standard) actually about the subject. Fails to establish third-party notability. Recent extensive revision was just a list of passing mentions in other sources; no verifiable sources actually about Sorcha Faal, and in no way up to the standards required of a BLP. From WP:BLP, "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." A BLP of someone barely notable with no high-quality sources about the subject should be deleted forthwith as a BLP hazard - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Those interested in judging this article might wish to see the full version from the recent history.
- David Gerard might wish to read the AfD messagebox and the instruction the article must not be blanked. Removal of 4/5th of the article volume isn't complete blanking, but nor is it an open and collegial action. If this content was so bad as to warrant blanking, I'm sure deletion would be an adequate substitute. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect - you don't leave spurious rubbish in BLPs, even for a deletion debate. I appreciate the concern, and I did consider the specific issue, but BLP rules trump ordinary deletion procedure in several important ways - David Gerard (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right, but, considering that this individual, if it is a single individual (and I'm not necessarily sure that is the case), but in this case we are dealing with an anonymous blogger, so it is, to a degree, really kind of impossible to know what does and doesn't meet BLP. Maybe. I'm not saying you're wrong in any way here, but I think it might be useful if WP:BLP or some other similar page made specific provision for anonymous possible BLPs. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect - you don't leave spurious rubbish in BLPs, even for a deletion debate. I appreciate the concern, and I did consider the specific issue, but BLP rules trump ordinary deletion procedure in several important ways - David Gerard (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This might be appropriate as part of an article on the website publishing these reports, but not as a standalone BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I agree with Andy, the full version should always be left in place, otherwise anyone can destroy an entry just for the purpose of saying it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmt885 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — Kmt885 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You have the link above for debate purposes - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? Are we really going to have to keep doing this deletion thing to keep an honest debate from happening? I am not convinced that a WP:BLP standard even applies to this entry due to the fact that this Sorcha Faal remains anonymous and could very well be an algorithm. For example, see this story from Vancouver Sun about how the LA Times are using them instead of reporters. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Robo%2Breporter%2Bcomputer%2Bprogram%2Braises%2Bquestions%2Babout/8156059/story.html Keep in mind too when evaluating this entry what it says in Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views and often suffer from a lack of coverage in verifiable and reliable sources, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability. This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors.
- It is worth noting that the restored material is mostly rubbish - one editorial in an RS that disparages the subject of the article, several non-RSes and editorial opinion pieces, many of the non-English language sources are actually letters to the editor ... this is an attempt to overwhelm in quantity despite the distinct lack of quality. Again, none of this is BLP-adequate - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's rubbish. The point is that we can decide if it's rubbish or not, rather than you telling us that it's rubbish and that we're not to even look at it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth noting that the restored material is mostly rubbish - one editorial in an RS that disparages the subject of the article, several non-RSes and editorial opinion pieces, many of the non-English language sources are actually letters to the editor ... this is an attempt to overwhelm in quantity despite the distinct lack of quality. Again, none of this is BLP-adequate - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the idea that alternative/fringe views aren't getting the necessary due weight in wikipedia to be a very extraordinary claim. Wikipedia has the reverse problem; If you edit in the area of fringe theories, you will realize the extreme amounts of undue promotion that go on. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment May I respectfully suggest Mr. Gerard that we submit our differences about this entry Wikipedia:Third opinion before you delete it again? Kmt885 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is precisely a request for third opinions - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment May I respectfully suggest Mr. Gerard that we submit our differences about this entry Wikipedia:Third opinion before you delete it again? Kmt885 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is admittedly a complex entry and deserves a substantial amount of discussion as this Sorcha Faal could very well be an algorithm and not a real person. And if so, how are such entries to be handled?Kmt885 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything I've seen treats "Sorcha Faal" as a person. If you're now claiming they're not, I assume you have a WP:RS to this effect - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the RfC. RfC's aren't appropriate in an AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources presented to demonstrate notability: Sorcha_Faal#Notability: *: Passing mention [10]
- dead link: [11]
- No mention of Sorcha: [http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/106695/]
- I don't think Boing Boing, a group blog, is a reliable source except for opinion [12]
- Some advocacy website, not RS as far as I can see. Only a passing mention. [13]
- SPS [14]
- No mention of Sorcha: [15].
- That these are considered the sources which demonstrate notability, is really scrapping the barrel. It does not demonstrate notability. Like in the previous AfD there is no signs of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this "person" is not notable. There is not coverage of the person in any significant degree in reliable, third-party sources. The coverage is built from passing-mention in opinion pieces that are attacking other people. It is trivial coveage. I have grave concerns about articles on anonymous bloggers, that may or may not be just one person. That said, this article clearly incorporates original research, specifically a google search. It also ncorporates junk claims, like the persons work has been "published in nearly every language". This is a puff peace, not an encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, this article may be the result of copyright violation. It was not created until 2012, yet some of the footnotes claim the website links were retrived as early as 2007.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not possible to save copies of a website, and then refer to them several years later when writing an article? Psychonaut (talk)
- Someone keeps recorded the information about when they edited an article for years before they write articles? That doesn't sound remotely plausible. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about your operating system, but mine (and just about every other one going back to the 1980s) conveniently timestamps all files with their modification date. The information is conspicuously presented in the file manager. I've got copies of web pages I saved back in the 1990s, and could get you the exact time and date with about three seconds' work. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone keeps recorded the information about when they edited an article for years before they write articles? That doesn't sound remotely plausible. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not possible to save copies of a website, and then refer to them several years later when writing an article? Psychonaut (talk)
- Additionally, this article may be the result of copyright violation. It was not created until 2012, yet some of the footnotes claim the website links were retrived as early as 2007.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I must first state that this entire deletion process for the Sorcha Faal entry is so riddled with Catch22 rules and Orwellian Newspeak it makes fairness and common sense mute points thus allowing self appointed judges to substitute their biases in place of what is really true and staring them in the face…but I’ll make my points anyway.
- Firstly, Sorcha Faal should be judged on the guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) religious denominations, sects[16], and not as a bio for a living person. Under these guidelines it clearly says: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice."
- Under this guideline, especially “attracting notice”, has Sorcha Faal achieved this? The answer to this question is an unequivocal yes. In a Google Advanced search using the term Sorcha Faal this is easily verified with this name being mentioned in: English over 500,000 time; Chinese (traditional) over 1 million times; Russian over 200,000 times; Spanish over 800,000 times; French over 100,000 times; German over 150,000 times, to just name the most used ones.
- If this isn’t notability what is? The anonymous Zero Hedge writer Tyler Durden[17] and the anonymous founder of Bitcoin Satoshi Nakamoto[18] are mentioned far less times in these languages than Sorcha Faal, are their entries next up for deletion?
- Secondly, as this Sorcha Faal entry clearly falls under the guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views[19] it should be noted that: Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views and often suffer from a lack of coverage in verifiable and reliable sources, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability.
- Thirdly, and admittedly, this entry does deserve a really good cleanup, but begs the question as to why this hasn’t been attempted by these self appointed judges? To refuse to acknowledge the global notability of this Sorcha Faal in the face of the overwhelming evidence that proves otherwise defies belief.Kmt885 (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, WP:GOOGLEHITS. Secondly, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Thirdly, a wikiproject blurb isn't to be taken as policy, in fact I dispute it's accuracy considering the large amount of non-notable fringe theories on wikipedia, and the amount of undue promotion that takes place. Fourthly, cleanup requires good sources, we have none because it is not notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is profoundly disingenuous. When I did try to clean up all the completely rubbish sources, you insisted on restoring them - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather disappointingly, Kmt885 has decided to canvass everyone from Wikiproject Alternative Views. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - And I'm one of them here. At this point, I have to say, based on the information presented, deletion is probably the better approach here. Like I said, above, I personally really think it would be useful to have BLP specifically address issues of "anonymous" potential BLPs, to provide some form of guidance on such subjects. But, at this point, from what I can see, the article doesn't have anything substantive to say about the alleged subject of this maybe biography, so I don't think that a good cause can be made that it meets the biography notability guidelines. Secondly, unless someone can prove that this alleged person is not a person, and continues to, basically, present itself as a person, I do think that we are obliged to apply BLP, until and unless clearly reliable sources indicating it is not a single person are provided, and they don't seem to be. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable.
- I too was notified by Kmt885. There is nothing inherently wrong with notification, where it becomes problematic is when notified editors do not consider their position and just vote, or where the notifying editor bothers unrelated people.
Neither of those seem to have occurred in this case.(Apparently Dougweller was bothered.)
- There are not enough independent sources here to establish notability.
- I should also say that anonymity and pseudonymity are "nothing new." Wikipedia already has hundreds of articles of pseudonyms (some of whom are entirely anonymous), including cases of collective pseudonyms which I would argue are analogous to an algorythmic identity. We do not need to construct a new policy or modify an existing policy. The issue at hand is not the identity or nature of "Sorcha Faal," but rather whether they have made a notable contribution that needs a Wikipedia article. If this article is kept, then identity questions become important to the tone and classification of the piece. But there is no evidence (either existing, or turning up in my own search) of notability at the moment.
- Kmt885, you may want to userfy the piece if you think you may be able to find an independent source for the notability of Sorcha Faal or WhatDoesItMean.Com later on. Remember to notify the deleting editor when recreating a page. Also, go easy on the "Orwellian Newspeak" and "self appointed judges" stuff, everyone here has the best interest of Wikipedia at heart, there is no collusion beyond the common belief in the value of reliable sources. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we ignore the group of editors this was sent to, it was clearly not the neutral notification that we require - our guideline says "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind you, I didn't know WikiProject Alternative Views existed, and I've just joined it. (And its guidelines on sourcing don't seem to say what Kmt885 thinks they say, fwiw.) - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Aloha, everyone. I am admittedly unfamiliar with the subject matter at hand; still, it does seem to me that there is hope here. Certainly, the article needs cleanup. May I recommend that those requesting deletion first assist in a good-faith effort to improve the article by assisting with this, and/or suggesting changes that would reflect reasonable quality standards? While I agree that there seem to be many problematic spots, it is difficult to build consensus on an action such as deletion while there are passionate editors defending the article, especially if they are willing to work to improve it. Perhaps respectfully building consensus on the smaller issues would lead toward a quality, consensual answer on the "keep"/"delete" question? Aloha! Laualoha 09:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- We did indeed attempt to, but apparently all the terrible sources are of startling importance. What it quite specifically needs is sources that are actually up to the standards required by WP:BLP. You should not presume that this has not been attempted already - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I defend my querying of Alt View participants in this discussion as this issue goes beyond this single Sorcha Faal entry and attacks the very concept of what Notability even is anymore.
- The reason for this is because any discussion involving anonymous bloggers in the 21st century (especially anti-establishment ones) must include the subject of algorithmically constructed news.
- The British national daily newspaper The Guardian reported in 2010 that algorithms are already reporting the news in the US[20], the technology news site Wired has detailed[21] how the US company Narrative Science[22] is at the forefront of algorithmic news writing, and the tech blog Techdirt reported that the future of reporting is going to be algorithms, not people.[23]
- The World Association of Newspapers And News Publishers[24] even quoted one of their senior news executive who said that the advent of robo reporters is a “coming apocalypse”.[25]
- When you combine the FACT of algorithmically constructed news with the FACT that Business Insider reported last year that 6 corporations control 90% of the media (i.e. reliable sources) in America[26] and then blend in the FACT that Wikipedia only judges notability based on references to a subject/person/organization by these same 6 corporations, then anyone can plainly see that this apocalypse is already here when this unholy triad (Algorithms-Corporations-Wikipedia) have the potential (indeed is even doing so right now) to control information/truth any way they so choose.
- Let me respectfully remind all of you of exactly what Wikipedia Values statement says: An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse.[27]
- So please somebody tell me, how can you outright delete this entry, without first trying to improve it (using alt standards), and still abide by the values of: “Thriving open formats” and “Content not subject to restrictions of creation, use, and reuse”?
- As I’ve stated before, any competent search[28] of this Sorcha Faal show her/it/them being mentioned hundreds of thousands of times the world over for over 10 years. Why is this so? And who or what wants to silence this prodigious commentator[29]?
- Passing mention or not, it is a FACT that this Sorcha Faal has become a thread in the global fabric of public discourse as a dissenter against the powers be that, in my humble opinion, shouldn’t be silenced by Wikipedia working hand-in-hand with those powers always seeking to silence dissenting opinions.Kmt885 (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have drunk a bit too much of the Kool-Aid, so I won't respond to your rather bizarre conspiracy theory about "Algorithms-Corporations-Wikipedia". Your comments also rely on erroneous arguments to use in deletion discussions (e.g WP:GOOGLEHITS). You appear to agree that you only have passing mentions, interesting. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Islamic funeral, which I will do upon concluding this non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cemetery for Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Virtually no more than a dictionary definition. No evidence that there is any notability of the concept of "Cemetery for Muslims", as opposed to cemeteries in general. No sources cited. (Note: a PROD was removed by the creator of the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Islamic funeral which contains more information on burial practices. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Islamic funeral for reason given by Colapeninsula. --Stfg (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Colapeninsula. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Islamic funeral per Colapeninsula. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Islamic funeral per Colapeninsula. — Joaquin008 (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bo Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination for Shimofuri mu, whose rationale was posted on the talk page and is included verbatim below. On the merits I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Submitting article for deletion instead on the same grounds of lack of notability and verifiable sources. Due diligence had been done to find for sources to support the article. However, no independent sources can be found as of 2013-04-04 in Google News and Google News Archive in at least the first two pages of search results as they're all either directly connected to the subject or are press releases. Also, notability had been challenged since 2008 and there had been no improvement in the article with regard to notability in the last 5 years. Shimofuri mu (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment As the nominator, I am presumed to be recommending for deletion and should not be adding another bullet/vote. However after I had raised the second nomination for AfD, Lenticel made major edits in an effort to address the issues on lack of valid sources, notability, and poor quality of the article. Unfortunately, the article still does not meet notability requirements and should be deleted. Please see the talk page for my explanation. Shimofuri mu (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented on your reply at the talk page. You only considered less than half of the references that I added to the article.--Lenticel (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "Preacher in blue jeans" pulls up plentiful sources in Google Books. What exactly is the lack of notability being refered to? I note that the nominator is an SPA In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment for reference, the article looked this at the time of the afd.--Lenticel (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Second nomination for AfD was raised before the major edits done by Lenticel when the article only had 3 cited references. On the note of nominator being SPA - I had usually contributed minor edits to Wikipedia before as IP/anonymous but had to create this account in observance of the rules for AfD. I was the IP editor who initially requested for proposed deletion but was given feedback by KuyaBriBri that AfD should be the proper process considering the first AfD nomination. I intend to use this account moving forward as I agree on the need for edit history for reputation. Shimofuri mu (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add that I pick up a lot of these malformed AFDs, and will usually complete them as per WP:AGF. But I do occasionally shitcan the whole nom if there's obvious bias or shenanigans involved, telling them not to bother with the nomination or sending them to WT:AFD. Needless to say, I did not see any of those concerns here, even with a recently registered account. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've expanded the article and addressed the verifiability and notability concerns--Lenticel (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete does not meet gng. Pass a Method talk 14:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does it not pass GNG?--Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article has been improved with major edits. — Joaquin008 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per major improvements to the article. Problems appear to have been addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Major improvements to the article after the AFD nomination by Lenticel provides musltiple independent reliable covering the subject to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete, obvious hoax. Like User:Gene93k, I find it hard to accept that a turn of the last century serial killer could kill 43 people and then be put down by a martial artist would exist without being better known. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heinous Holcomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to be a subtle hoax. The post on its talk page by 18.189.83.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made me aware of this article.
- The article contains coordinates to some campground in California. Biographical articles do not normally contain coordinates.
- The article contains only one unreliable source.
- The article does not seem to be logical, just from reading it.
- The user that created it, MalayanTapir (talk · contribs), only has two edits to this site: the creation of the article and unreliably sourced info on William F. Holcomb, removed by the aforementioned IP.
This article is typical of a hoax: it looks somewhat plausible because it looks good (with coordinates, source, wikilinks, and good section organization), but I am convinced that it is a hoax. I'm bringing it here since it's not obvious enough for CSD. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 16:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 16:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 16:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, although not as an obvious hoax (it is unquestionably a hoax, but is far from obvious), but because I suspect this is a veiled attack page against someone with a name similar to the purported subject. All significant American serial killers have been the subject of substantial media coverage. The implausible vigilante martial artist aspect to this story would have ensured substantial attention; no reliable sources (or, really, unreliable sources) mention anything remotely like this. Furthermore, the psychiatric hospital named in this article does not exist. There are only a few references online to a "Malboro Psychiatric Hospital", and exclusively in unreliable sources. From context, however, it is obvious that all these uses are misspellings of the very real Marlboro Psychiatric Hospital. Despite the categories in this article suggesting that this all took place in California (or possibly Indiana), that facility is in New Jersey. But perhaps more to the point, groundbreaking for the hospital's construction didn't take place until a decade after this purported once-patient's death. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. The article's referencing is bogus. I can find no trace of this person outside the Wikipedia article. With 43 alleged kills, the subject would be one of the most prolific serial killers in American history. Surely he would get some book or newspaper coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was snow delete--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Yellow Buses routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a Yellow Bus. It would also be suitable on their companies article. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Davey2010 Talk 18:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Such lists are subject to frequent change and do not make for a stable encyclopedia. Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT, WP:N, and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Not suitable for an encyclopaedia, key routes can be mentioned briefly in the operator article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent. (1) These lists require maintenance, because they are liable to be changed, but this cannot be guaranteed. (2) WP is not a directory or travel guide. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom et al. This is as crufty and trivial as I've ever seen. I would not object to a smerge to the main article. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As stated above, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Even WikiVoyage avoids them. Mkdwtalk 21:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Uberaccount (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Azreg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I originally deprodded a BLP prod due to the presence of sources in the article, but I can't actually find anything reliable other than [30], which is hardly in-depth. I was able to unreliably source him managing Persitara, but everything else may be a hoax. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Article is full of false information i.e. he did not play 33 times for Sheffield United, per this. GiantSnowman 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That confirms my suspicions then. I also have my doubts over whether some of the listed teams ever existed. Really wish I hadn't wasted my time trying to improve this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the red-linked teams are real, others I do not know, they may be made-up. Either way, I have removed the infobox as blatantly false. GiantSnowman 18:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the infobox is what I put in, and where I realized that the entire article was pretty much one big hoax. I have the sneaking suspicion this may be one of those football con-artist people, especially as its his website that made these claims, but whatever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 16:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, failing WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment recently (April 3), a whole bunch of stuff was removed from the article. Nothing on the talk page--in fact there is no talk page. Currently the article is stripped down to just a couple of sentences. It seems to me that such huge edits should not be made without at least some justification on its talk page, even if it is AfD.Listmeister (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you actually look at the history properly, you'll see that I transferred the tables that were in the main body into an infobox, which was then rightly removed by another user as everything in it was a hoax, bar one thing. The edits I made were prior to the AfD, and considering I de-BLP prodded the article, I clearly wasn't doing anything underhand. Please, research properly before commenting. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for sweeping generalizations. It was mainly GiantSnowman's unexplained massive deletion that I was referring to anyway. The deleted bit said he had played for Toulouse FC. Has it been determined that that didn't happen? For the record, I don't much care whether we keep the article or not, it just bugged me that the article had been practically blanked out with no explanation.Listmeister (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been determined that the Sheffield United bit was definitely a hoax, therefore I would expect everything else to be. GiantSnowman DID explain his deletion in this AfD, by the way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Igor Ohirko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating per previous AFD that was closed with deletion of article View previous AfD. Article was created under a different name to avoid the previous AFD. Loreleil (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Masha (product) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable product. Through various searches, I've found nothing but the usual social media pages and the website selling the product. Created by a COI/spa account (with the same name as the website) and an IP (which traces to the trademark owners city), this "article" is an advert for a non-notable product. SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notable product. The Masha (product) is a notable product due to its eligibility for and attainment of patent protection, its commercial availability, and the fact that it is mechanically distinguishable from every other kitchen appliance, see, e.g., Mixer or Blender. Other than the identity of the product's U.S. distributor, the current article does not contain any advert information. Reference to the product's U.S. distributor website is appropriate for explanatory purposes. NexGenStore 22:48, 3 April 2013
- Comment - You may feel that your product is "notable". However, Wikipedia's definition of notability primarily depends on the existence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is no indication that such sources exist. If you are aware of such coverage for your product, please provide it here and/or on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The blog you just added is not a reliable source either. Please see WP:SPS. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please note the text of the referenced patent, which cites the product's legal novelty and distinctions from products in the kitchen appliance space. The fact that the product is new and only recently being reviewed by authors of secondary and tertiary sources does not in itself negate its notability. It is the author's position that the article should have reasonable time to be edited with the benefit of such forthcoming secondary and tertiary sources without prior deletion. NexGenStore 22:35, 5 April 2013
- "Legal novelty" does not establish notability. A product is notable "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Please see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please note that the article's creator has apparently forgotten to log in several times. Nexgenstore, 75.15.205.87 and 12.217.50.1 are, AFAICT, the same conflicted single purpose editor. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please note that the prior failure to login was inadvertent, and the above comments contained the author's signature. The conflict of interest is acknowledged, the author of the article has attempted to ensure that there is not any unconfirmable information contained in the article, and third party contributions to the article are invited in accordance with applicable guidelines. NexGenStore 22:35, 5 April 2013
- SummerPhD, please remove the aforementioned IP address references, as there is proper attribution contained in the author's comments. NexGenStore 22:35, 5 April 2013
- Delete - It certainly looks like an interesting kitchen appliance. However, it has not received singificant coverage independent reliable sources to establish that a Wikipedia article is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was userfied. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not My Turn to Die: Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This memoir is not notable, simply put. That it's published by the American Management Association does not help either. A search on Google News produces a substantial number of results, but look carefully: many of them, such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (there's more) are all opinion pieces and such by the author himself, placed on various "news" sites all over the world, in which the author is careful to mention his own book and his website. There are a few somewhat valid hits--this is a review on an institute's web page (not really an acceptable medium for reviews, and it's a reprint from the reviewer's blog); this is a piece of some sort on a news site whose reliability is questionable; and this--well, this is in a "entertainment/celebrity news and review publication" whose notability and reliability I doubt. In short, lacking relevant reviews published in reliable sources, delete. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Solid fact-checking, Drmies. I can't find anything aside from passing mentions, either. No indication of notability. m.o.p 16:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Good work. --John (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I contest this deletion on the grounds that the manuscript is notable enough to be required reading for humanity classes pertaining to genocide by professors at universities. Due to RL and other issues, I've not yet had time to complete the article, and request worst case scenario it be placed in User:Technical_13/Drafts/Not My Turn to Die_(book) as a userspace draft until such a time as I can edit it and complete it. Thank you for your consideration. — User:Technical 13 ( C • M • View signature as intended) 15:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC) -- comment/request copied from talkpage of blocked user. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfication is fine, I suppose. (Not enough time--you started this in November of 2011, and you had enough time to do all this.) As for "required reading", that cannot usually be proved by secondary sources, and even if it were is probably not sufficient to establish notability. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with Drmies on this one. Not notable enough. Vacation9 21:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in the interest of full disclosure, a little birdie dropped an old copy of the Financial Times on my doorstep, with three paragraphs on our subject. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I have been unblocked: I contest this deletion on the grounds that the manuscript is notable enough to be required reading for humanity classes pertaining to genocide by professors at universities, so I'm sure I can dig up enough reliable sources outside of course syllabi. Due to RL and other issues, I had not yet had time to complete the article, and request worst case scenario it be placed in User:Technical 13/Drafts/Not My Turn to Die (book) as a userspace draft until such a time as I can edit it and complete it. Thank you for your consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved it myself and WP:CSDed the redirect with G6 (if someone wants to get that) since that is where the consensus was heading anyways. Feel free to close this discussion and I apologize for not creating this as a WP:USD in the first place. Technical 13 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I have been unblocked: I contest this deletion on the grounds that the manuscript is notable enough to be required reading for humanity classes pertaining to genocide by professors at universities, so I'm sure I can dig up enough reliable sources outside of course syllabi. Due to RL and other issues, I had not yet had time to complete the article, and request worst case scenario it be placed in User:Technical 13/Drafts/Not My Turn to Die (book) as a userspace draft until such a time as I can edit it and complete it. Thank you for your consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. It seems that almost everyone is in agreement that the content we have on this team here and in other articles needs to be merged, however there is no consensus as to which direction it should be merged in (i.e. to or from this article). That is a question best suited to a merge discussion on a relevant article or project talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All of the pertinent information is already in The Corre, in The Nexus (professional wrestling), in Heath Slater and in Justin Gabriel. The existence of this article is a perfect example of unnecessary cruft as well as redundant content forking. Feedback ☎ 01:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Feedback ☎ 01:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Because these two were never much of a tag team outside of those two large factions I don't see much of a reason for them to get a separate article.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sufficient coverage to establish notability. No reason to delete a well-sourced article about a team that won the top championship three times. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason? This is content forking at it's finest. Every single tidbit of important coverage in this article is already stated in four different articles. I'm not saying the coverage in this article isn't noteworthy, I'm saying it's just not notable for a 4th entry in the encyclopedia. The coverage at the other 4 articles is sufficient. Feedback ☎ 02:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per feedback. 4 articles. They do nothing notable outside corre or nexus.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources look good, and three-time tag champs is a pretty notable achievement, even if they're not exactly Demolition. To avoid redundancy, delete repeated info from the other articles instead and Wikilink here. They're
probablytoo wordy, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Most info is repeated, which is my original point. If their career post-Corre had spanned more than 3 episodes, then there would be a major section on that part of their tag team career with hatnotes to Nexus (professional wrestling) and The Corre for the other parts. But the tag team's notability spans from their time in both stables and all the noteworthy information is already there. Feedback ☎ 23:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I see it, this team is more notable than The Corre, and gave the stable the rub, not the other way around. Like Edge and Christian did for The Brood, sort of. Whatever is mentioned of them in those articles belongs only here instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They were tag team champions three times in the biggest wrestling promotion in the world and wrestled in more high profile matches then the other recent tag team AfDs. STATic message me! 04:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With the risk of sounding like a broken record, we are not arguing about whether the subject is notable enough to have inclusion in the encyclopedia. It definitely deserves to be on the encyclopedia, but all of this information is already in 4 different articles. Your keep reasoning makes it sound as if we're trying to do away with the subject completely. I would consider this a "merge" proposal, if it wasn't for the fact that all this information is in the articles already. Feedback ☎ 04:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and merge with The Corre; this tag team history is brief and those of the other Nexus/Corre members can all be explained in a background section. --Truco 503 14:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The love that dare not speak its name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A WP:DICTDEF for the past 7+ years, and the incoming links also use it as such -- wiktionary is a better place for it. An article expansion beyond the dict def would largely mirror Homosexuality#Europe, i.e. WP:CONTENTFORK. In its current longterm state, I'd either delete this article (trivial meaning better left to wiktionary) or turn it into a redirect to Homosexuality immediately, but the talk page (creation time) disagrees. – sgeureka t•c 14:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a classic example of a phrase whose meaning isn't obvious and that people will look up. The current article is in fact quite brief at this point. But even now it handsomely does the job of pointing readers towards the articles s:Two Loves (1894 poem), Oscar Wilde, Lord Alfred Douglas, and homosexuality. I suspect the article can in fact be expanded from what we have already; but even as it stands, it serves the useful purpose of showing people where to learn more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are hundreds of available references for this phrase, used in various contexts ranging from literary criticism to same-sex marriage, in books, academic journals, magazines and newspapers. - MrX 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the sort of phrase that does definitely warrant an encyclopedia article - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the relevant section in Oscar Wilde if the article cannot be expanded, keep otherwise. Roodog2k (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article can and should be expanded; this phrase is rich with references and reuses, in ways that are too dense to capture simply in a "quote" book sort of formulation. --Lquilter (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mr.X, Lquilter, and Cirt - this is a very useful phrase, and thousands of good sources could be added; see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Grupo Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to their own biography "Grupo Rush" is a completely other band than described here. At present, the article is an advertisement The Banner talk 11:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looks like the same band to me. --Michig (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 07:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While going over the Spanish-language sources I think that this meets WP:GNG, as well as WP:BAND #8 (among others). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hazrat Najeeb Sultan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Non-notable BLP and puff piece. Google search reveals many Facebook and Youtube pages, a few Blogspot, Twitter and Flickr pages, this site which contains user-submitted content (in this case only a jpeg and a link to his home page), and various links to different people, living and dead. News and books link only to Facebook and news items about different people. --Stfg (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Google is not the key for notability. Sometimes local religious figures particularly in South Asia have less internet appearance and we should consider avoiding systemic bias. The subject is the spiritual master of singer Abida Parveen [31]. A more in depth search is advised.[32], [33], [34], [35] etc. Mrwikidor ←track 05:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I took this to AFD rather than PROD for just this reason. Thank you for your help in seeking out sources. However, your second link is about a different person, the 17th-century Sufi saint, author and poet Sultan Bahu. Your third link is to a report of a case in the Pakistani Supreme Court in which he was one of three who were petitioned against in a case concerning Sultan Bahu's shrine; the report only states who won and who represented him in court. (I found both these already, in fact.) Your remaining three links ([36] , [37] , [38]) all contain copies of the same three sentences identifying him as Abida Parveen's spritual guide and the inspiration for an album by her. Any of these three could be used as source for the last entry in Abida Parveen#Discography and possibly even a sentence in Abida Parveen#Personal life. But none of these five links seem to meet the requirement of WP:GNG that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. --Stfg (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could only find social media and passing mentions. Nothing close to meeting WP:GNG. I did go thru before the AfD and deleted the "references". The references were to Sufism or passing mention of Sultan that didn't backup what was being sourced. Bgwhite (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. No reliable sources come even close to establishing the notability of this individual. On top of that, the overly positive nature of the article's tone and the fact that the article's creator also uploaded a photo which he personally took of the subject (check the photo) paints a picture of a user creating an article about some local spiritual leader he knows personally. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOT#FANSITE and Wikipedia:Notability (people) big time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- 2008 Murshidabad beheading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The topic "2008 Murshidabad beheading" is about a news of a village in the district of Murshidabad of West Bengal similar to that happens in many undeveloped villages across India due to lack of poverty, educations and social awareness. The title of the topic is not mentioned in none of the sources provided. However giving such titles signifies the article creator's own view on the subject. Sentences like The incident created a public outrage even though sections of the mainstream media blacked out the incident as a part of their responsible journalism. may create WP:COI . -- Mrwikidor ←track 12:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This incident was not an ordinary incident. A kangaroo court orders execution of a man for marrying a woman of different religion and that execution is carried out. Can you show any other instance of this shocking incident? This is an unparalleled event in the history of West Bengal. It was reported by at least two Indian media houses. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many instances of similar incidents carried out by kangaroo courts like this one[39] and particularly in West Bengal where issues like child labor and child marriage co-exists.[40] Also, UNICEF reported that "caste population is almost one quarter of the state´s population and higher than the national average. These children and families face discrimination and exclusion from health, education and many social programmes". My friend, "the history of West Bengal" has a lot more shocking incidents for example [41] or [42] or this [43] etc. Still if the news described in "2008 Murshidabad beheading" is worthy of notable as per your views but i'm still unsure why you refer the news as 2008 Murshidabad beheading when none of the reference provided cited that title?? - Mrwikidor ←track 14:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Brother, none of the reports pointed out by you mention a person being killed on the orders of a kangaroo court. There have instances of honour killing or killing on suspicion of witchcraft, but is there any other incident where a shalishi court presided over by educated people who have ordered the killing of an individual just for marrying someone of different religion? In case of title it is precise, natural and concise just as WP:TITLE recommends. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -This is kind of Honor Killing still exists in various parts of India particularly in villages and are reported frequently in local news channels. Another similar news has been reported by The Times of India here[44] or this [45] reported by AAJ TV. Such incidents are among the major problems in India. A good resource i found is here[46] and also here[47] and it is obvious that such incidents can only take place by the decisions of kangaroo courts or khap panchayats as told here[48] by the Lawyers Collective like another reported here[49] by The Times of India. - Mrwikidor ←track 14:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This incident is not honor killing. According to Wikipedia 'an honor killing, or honour killing is the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members, due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community'. In this case, someone who didn't belong to the family or social group of the perpetrators were killed. If the woman was killed then it would have been an honor killing. Kindly refrain from making irrelevant comments. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The problems identified in the nomination could be solved by cleanup rather than deletion. If this is indeed a common problem, then perhaps a generic article about it would be possible, and then this could be merged into it. Until that happens, this incident seems notable, and it would be wrong for Wikipedia to omit all mention of this problem. It is not necessary for the sources to use exactly this title -- it's enough that they describe the beheading and they give the 2008 date. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The title seems intentional researching on the article creator's contributions where Hindu fanatics like Upananda Brahmachari[50] contributed. Many of the contributions by the article creator are biased anti-islamic propaganda, as an example this[51]. Several claims have been made in hundreds of articles[52] without any citations. Many articles lack neutrality. A generic article may work but i'd love to know how you found this incident worthy of Wikipedic? Mrwikidor ←track 16:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was ad hominem. We don't delete articles just because of who contributed them. Please, comment on the content, not on the contributor. --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not an ad hominem and nobody asked to delete this article for its contributor. In case if you haven't read my comments so far then please read again. My issue is with the tone of the article that is presenting an incident similar to many happen in West Bengal in anti-Islamic manner. Mrwikidor ←track 04:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To say "Many of the contributions by the article creator are biased anti-islamic propaganda" is ad hominem. --Stfg (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear, please look below to the post by User:Handyunits for an upgraded version of ad hominem. Mrwikidor ←track 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To say "Many of the contributions by the article creator are biased anti-islamic propaganda" is ad hominem. --Stfg (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not an ad hominem and nobody asked to delete this article for its contributor. In case if you haven't read my comments so far then please read again. My issue is with the tone of the article that is presenting an incident similar to many happen in West Bengal in anti-Islamic manner. Mrwikidor ←track 04:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was ad hominem. We don't delete articles just because of who contributed them. Please, comment on the content, not on the contributor. --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The title seems intentional researching on the article creator's contributions where Hindu fanatics like Upananda Brahmachari[50] contributed. Many of the contributions by the article creator are biased anti-islamic propaganda, as an example this[51]. Several claims have been made in hundreds of articles[52] without any citations. Many articles lack neutrality. A generic article may work but i'd love to know how you found this incident worthy of Wikipedic? Mrwikidor ←track 16:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the title does not meet WP:POVNAMING and Wikipedia is not a newspaper Dejakh~talk!•did! 19:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- WP:POVNAMING is grounds for renaming, not for deletion, but in any case, what is the POV here? The sources do record that this beheading took place there in 2008. WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", and I think this five-year-ago event has durable notability. --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This 5 year old event fails WP:EVENT Mrwikidor ←track 04:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POVNAMING is grounds for renaming, not for deletion, but in any case, what is the POV here? The sources do record that this beheading took place there in 2008. WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", and I think this five-year-ago event has durable notability. --Stfg (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mrwikidor ←track 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:EVENT and less notable than Rizwanur Rahman. - Voidz (t·c) 06:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Less notable compared to certain other event cannot be a criteria for deletion. The event had a shaken the ruling government at that time. The Chief Secretary had made public statement that the culprits would be punished. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article must not be deleted as it has highlighted a case of religious extremism.Fazla Rabbi (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Bad faith nomination by political activist. This nomination is part of a WP:CANVASS campaign carried out by nominator to get articles on incidents carried out by South Asian Islamic militants deleted. See this diff, as well as this racist edit summary made by editor that casts false aspersions on established wikipedia editors, violating WP:AGF and WP:NPOV.Handyunits (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, this is called a pure ad hominem. Mrwikidor ←track 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As Inigo Montoya famously said, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means". I urge you to read a dictionary, and not copy-paste from StG's post above.05:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handyunits (talk • contribs)
- Now, this is called a pure ad hominem. Mrwikidor ←track 20:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The main concern is that WP:COI. There are no as such COI in this article. The incident and event is notable. any one can write the article as mention by similar to that happens in many undeveloped villages across India due to lack of poverty, educations and social awareness.
Mrwikidor.
- There are no limit.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above keep !vote was made by user:Jayantanth in this edit. The link to User:Mrwikidor is not Mrwikidor's signature. The strikethough and reformatting were done by me in an attempt to make matters clear. --Stfg (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nomination rationale consists of several things: objecting to the name (not a deletion reason), accusations of COI (not a deletion reason), WP:IDONTLIKEIT (not a deletion reason) and borderline personal attacks. It also consists of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that this happens regularly (which I doubt), and is thus not remotely based on policy. This event did receive coverage a couple of years after the event: [53], although how reliable that is, I don't know (it doesn't seem too bad). Obviously the Kolkatta Telegraph is fairly local coverage, but if the Asian Age is reliable, then that evidently is not. There's also this [54]. Add Hindi sources, which will surely exist, and I'm confident this passes WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pass a Method talk 08:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I was not asked to comment by anybody; I found this on a project deletion page. I see no reason for actual deletion and even the article's name doesn't seem to be a problem. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by User:Deb. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lena Måndotter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page is an advert SPACKlick (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and have speedy deleted. Deb (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 23:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Secret of Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of notability. All coverage to be found is from fringe, biased sources, not reliable secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. No widespread, significant coverage by legitimate media. See the deletion arguments for the director's other film, The Money Masters. It was deleted for similar reasons. Ducknish (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The documentary won an award at a reputable film festival (or at least one with a Wikipedia entry). Enos733 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's just about it in terms of accolades, and I'm not sure how much weight that particular festival imparts, because it doesn't seem to be one of the most important film festivals (I could be wrong). And even then, if reliable sources don't exist... Ducknish (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I looked at this article for deletion as well, and verified that it won an award at a legitimate film festival. It doesn't have the same problems that The Money Masters had in terms of the film not being notable, it's currently a viable stub. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Changing to delete due to the strength of the arguments below the relisting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for this in Google News, I keep coming across posts in the comment sections mentioning it everywhere, and places just announcing it was on their television station. Highbeam shows only one result, but it something about a 3D effect with glass, nothing to do with this documentary. If the Beloit, Wisconsin film festival was notable, wouldn't someone write an article about the winner of the best documentary award? Dream Focus 10:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete article.
Merge what is sourcable and then Redirect title to it filmmaker Bill Still.Simple point here being that as a film, it fails applicable notability criteria. This free-to-watch-online, for-sale-at-Amazon documentary film by Bill Still exists, but has not received the requisite commentary or analysis in independent reliable sources. While it may have won an award at a notable film festival, that award did not result in coverage. It's existence is verifiable. Its notability is not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- The Bill Still article is almost certainly going to be deleted at this point. Meanwhile, winning a noteworthy film award does confer notability in this case. This is a very different case from Still's other film, and Still himself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: With the elimination of the Bill Still article, my suggestion above of a merge is now struck. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bill Still article is almost certainly going to be deleted at this point. Meanwhile, winning a noteworthy film award does confer notability in this case. This is a very different case from Still's other film, and Still himself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per rationale of Thargor Orlando. A viable stub, notable by virtue of having won a prominent award from a notable film festival.-- Dwc89 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that Thargor Orlando has changed his argument to delete. Mkdwtalk 00:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: for Dwc89 and Thargor Orlando: I am a staunch defender of improvable articles, and have a long history of improving and saving articles facing deletion. But we need to be realistic. The first thing WP:NFF tells us that meeting WP:GNG could be sufficient for a film article. However and sadly, lacking any sort if coverage in independent reliable sources this film topic fails the GNG. And yes, while its section on "other evidence of notability" instructs that when internet coverage is not always possible, winning an major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking IS a indicator that when supported with reliable sources, required sources are likely to exist. That's what we need. Reliable sources speaking about the film. Simple. Had I been able to find any though my various searches, I would be trying to improve the article myself. The best I have found is BSNews: "The Secret of Oz won best documentary of 2010 at the Beloit International Film Festival. It won the Silver Sierra Award for Excellence in Filmmaking at the Yosemite Film Festival. It won the Award of Merit at The Accolade Competition in La Jolla, California. It won the Silver Screen Award at the Nevada Film Festival. It’s received an excellent review on Nathan’s Economic Edge, one of the world’s top economics blogs." If BSNews can be considered reliable, and if Nathan's Economic Edge id determined suitable, then we have a meeting of WP:GNG and thus WP:NF.... but only IF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And looking at it, BSNews (the BS standing for bullshit) does not appear to be a reliable source. It seems to be precisely the kind of fringe media that does not prove notability for something like this. Ducknish (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDelete I'm leaning towards delete at this point. Bill Still was deleted via XFD, but User:Dwc89 has made it a redirect. I have nominated it for A10 since the outcome was delete, not redirect, and DWC89 can take it to WP:DRV. That said, despite winning its award, all the sources are primary on the article, and if no reliable sources have paid attention to the film winning the award, it's likely not a very prestigious award. Notability is not inherent. A notable film festival does not mean that its award is notable. Mkdwtalk 00:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- You make a good point here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed my position to delete. Unless we can find sources that directly show the award is notable and/or prestigious, then we should not assume the award is notable because the festival is notable, and subsequently, winning the award makes the film notable. For me, it appears notability is three times removed from the source. Mkdwtalk 01:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Though the Bill Still article is now deleted, I would think specially in considering how many reliable sources speak toward and quote Mr. Still, and per WP:CREATIVE#1, a NEUTRAL and encyclopedic article on the man is possible. IF such a new article is created, his film can be mentioned therein. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the consensus in the deletion discussion of his article was that, POV aside, he's still non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)r[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. King Jakob C2 22:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Non-admin closure[reply]
- Darussalam Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads like an advertisment, links to no other pages and is linked by no other pages, having read the page I cannot tell which country its in. Article provides 0 information on a topic unlikely to be searched for on Wikipedia. SPACKlick (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to the above, most of the article appears to be quoted from the school's founder with no attribution. There are some passages lifter verbatim from the schools blogspot page. I'm not sure this instituion is ntoable enough for a page. SPACKlick (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio is not an issue; the content is subject to an OTRS ticket. TerriersFan (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to the above, most of the article appears to be quoted from the school's founder with no attribution. There are some passages lifter verbatim from the schools blogspot page. I'm not sure this instituion is ntoable enough for a page. SPACKlick (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite to remove copied text. This is a secondary school in Pakistan. In almost all cases we keep articles about secondary schools, and we need to avoid systemic bias. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to quote from SchoolOutcomes "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. This is different than attempts to delete the school district." Merge to lowest level locality seems to apply.SPACKlick (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You quoted the first bullet point. It is the second bullet point that applies here. This is is a secondary school, also called a high school, so the outcome in about 99% of cases is to keep the article, unless it is a hoax. This school clearly exists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to quote from SchoolOutcomes "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. This is different than attempts to delete the school district." Merge to lowest level locality seems to apply.SPACKlick (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Pakistani schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidney Ralph Howes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is unreferenced and an orphan. IMO this article fails GNG and notability. Gbawden (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only claim to notability is the OBE, then that fails WP:BIO. There are hundreds of thousands of OBE recipients, living and deceased. While the recognition in itself does not confer notability, the reason might, but I don't think it does in this case. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The grant of an OBE suggests significance above the majority, but without further evidence of WP notability, I do not think the notability threshold is crossed. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Extraterrestrial skies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although it breaks my heart to do so because WP:ILIKEIT, I believe that this is an example of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I can't really find any sources to verify many of the claims. Roodog2k (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I see 16 references. Just because it needs better referencing is not a reason to delete it. -- Kheider (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My concerns are not so much about the existing references, but whether these references are used as WP:SYNTH. Further, some of the statements seem to be WP:OR... such as "From Phobos, Mars appears 6,400 times larger and 2,500 times brighter than the full Moon as seen from Earth, taking up a quarter of the width of a celestial hemisphere" and the whole section on Alpha Centauri Bb would be two examples. Roodog2k (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems to be a *Very Popular* (and Reader-friendly?) Wikipedia Article - ALSO - seems to satisfy WP:NASTCRIT #3 => "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals." => See References - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If we can have articles of a biographical nature about fictional characters, then this article about the real world is appropriate. Also, it isn't a slapdash short article, but an extensive write up covering sights that astronauts might one day see much of. Gcapp1959 (don't have the tilde on my iPad)
- Delete - Very sad to say (because it is such a great article), but if we are going by WP policy this is OR and SYNTH. It is much the same as an article on "Inspirational sports people" for example. Each section could be merged with the article on the planet, moon, etc. in question. Borock (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it like an article on "Inspirational sports people"? That would be necessarily subjective and open to endless debate, while this article is based on scientific fact. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't the point of comparison I was thinking of. You could find secondary sources that say a sports figure was inspirational to some people. I actually think it would be a very interesting article, as this one is. Borock (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it like an article on "Inspirational sports people"? That would be necessarily subjective and open to endless debate, while this article is based on scientific fact. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't see WP:OR among the reasons for deletion. It may contain some WP:OR, but not exclusively; and it easily meets the general notability criteria. There are plenty of facts that either have citations or for which they could be found - after all, we have sent satellites to most of these bodies, and even taken pictures from the surfaces of some. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If it was a good enough subject for Life Magazine in 1954, an astronomical Atlas from 1980, a chapter in a popular science book from 2000, etc., then it's good enough for us (that is, I believe that the subject matter of the article is notable as a whole, and not just a synthesis of individually-notable pieces). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks David E. However those sources seem to be examples of paintings of extraterrestrial skies, not discussions of the topic itself. Also I, at least, am not advocating the removal of any of the fine scientific material in this article; just spreading it around to the different articles on the planets themselves. Borock (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have read articles on the topic in science-oriented magazines, so I believe it's a notable topic according to Wikipedia standards. Praemonitus (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - looks fine to me. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since when are "I've read articles on the subject" and "Seems okay to me" valid keep criteria? And what's with all of the above upper case Keep !votes? Is this some sort of meatpuppetry? RNealK (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles I've read indicate that this topic satisfies WP:GNG. If I'm a meatpuppet then might I suggest you're trolling? Read WP:Civility and be more respectful. Praemonitus (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but needs more sourcing. This AfD is mentioned on Jimbo's talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think the article as a whole violates WP:SYNTH - "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". The only position it could be advancing is that skies look different on other planets - and who would question that? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The way I see it, when dealing with objective facts, rather than subjective facts, there is a fine line between OR and SYNTH. So, claiming that a certain star is a certain planets pole star is SYNTH. Planet A has X axial tilt. Star B is located at Y. Therefore, Planet A's pole star is Y... unless there is a secondary source that says this. OR is the whole section on Alpha Centauri Bb, or how large Mars appears from its moons. The article is full of this. Not much, if anything, is left otherwise. Roodog2k (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination provides no specific details of the supposed synthesis or originality and so is just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. The topic is notable — here's two more sources: Drifting on Alien Winds: Exploring the Atmospheres and Weather of Other Worlds, Space Art: How to Draw and Paint Planets, Moons, and Landscapes of Alien Worlds. Organising and verifying the copious material is just a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry for not explaining better. While each subtopic regarding the skies of other planetary objects in the solar system and exoplanets elsewhere is notable and verifable, combining these together under one article can be considered synthesis and OR, and maybe even an essay. Roodog2k (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An essay is "A composition of moderate length on any particular subject, or branch of a subject; originally implying want of finish". This well describes most of our articles and is no reason to delete. Placing related topics together under a common heading is not synthesis; it is just sensible organisation. To be anything like a reason to delete, you must demonstrate that there is a particular proposition which has been invented in a novel way and that this cannot be better dealt with by ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sixteen sources says it all. yeah, Muskie72 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ancistrus Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a non-notable cosmetic procedure. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 12:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominated--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, unverified, and non-notable. I could find nothing about this supposed therapy at PubMed or at Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I cannot find any coverage in reliabel sources abotu this treatment. I did find material related to the garra rufa like this, but that is something else and covered in the articel about that fish. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that there is no real evidence that this particular building is in any way notable. ~ mazca talk 23:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lapworth House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This ex-residential block isn't notable. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 11:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Run of the mill former building of no encyclopedic interest.--Charles (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- a council housing tower block, little different from many others. It might he possible to rename and repurpose this inot an article on the St Lukes estate, Birmingham. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Galleries, Aldershot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence at all of notability. (A PROD was removed without any explanation by a single purpose account that seems to be a second account of the creator of the article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. Safiel (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DElete -- we do not normally allow articles on shopping malls, except about half a dozen out of town regional shopping centres. This one appears now to be derelict and is perhpas awaiting redevelopment. The list of stores in it has some bluelinks, but I guess these are articles on the companies, not the particualr shops. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Slidehard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of widespread use or notability of this term. The one reference does not seem to be a significant source, and is probably not reliable. (A PROD was removed by the creator of the article, with no explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom statement. This content would be more appropriate for the Urban Dictionary. - MrX 12:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 13:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom … the single "reference" is a WP:SPAMLINK to a book for sale at the author's website. Happy Editing! — 108.48.215.54 (talk · contribs) 16:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, didn't know that a show canceled years ago had enough fans still around for them to have an actual name. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment … FYI, the author of this article, Slidersfanblog (talk · contribs), has been indef blocked from editing because of their username. — 108.48.215.54 (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, by me. That's how I got to this AfD. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Solid nomination. When I did my own search I found very little. This could easily be WP:OR. The lone source the article has does not support the statement it cites, only the fact that somewhere someone had used it, possibly even user submitted content and a very dubious source. Mkdwtalk 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. All we seem to agree on is that this is a borderline case in terms of notability. Sandstein 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Craig Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1. no sources on the person - notability is not inherited - fails WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG . (independent of AfD, creator has WP:COI ) 2. advert Widefox; talk 15:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose to WP:userfy (2nd time). Widefox; talk 14:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWeak keep - I realise it was me that added the 'notability' tag, so I probably err in favour of deletion. However, notability is inherited if something you personally create (a book, an artwork, a film etc.) is widely reviewed/written about. Producers and directors are a grey area in my view, because TV programmes are generally a team effort. Graham's book are co-authored and seem not to have attracted much attention. However, The Age article describes Graham's process in creating his series, Border Security; if there was more news coverage like this I'd be inclined to argue for a 'weak keep'. It's very borderline indeed at the moment. Sionk (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Don't think we even have a reference for the DOB, or other bio data. The theage source is primary - his words.
- There's only incidental mention of the person in TV listings etc. I also agree with the comment at Talk:Craig Graham - why was this accepted from AfC? This is the same WP:SPA WP:COI creator from the previous AfD that has correctly recreated via userfication - the article and its photo has been created by a digital PR company he works with (that had to change username due to username violation), but has not disclosed this COI on her new account. Widefox; talk 09:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my recommendation to 'Weak keep' after finding a long complimentary 2012 news article in The Age. There is an evident link between Graham's skill and creative input and the success of his TV documentaries. The WP article still needs cleaning up, all the same! Sionk (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- not sure that helps with notability - a primary source per WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG (interview about a TV programme). No bio info for a BLP, but very useful if we had multiple secondaries, and the programme does look notable. Widefox; talk 14:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure a news article that quotes Graham constitutes an "interview". In fact I'm sure it doesn't by any normal interpretation! Sionk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- not sure that helps with notability - a primary source per WP:AUTHOR / WP:GNG (interview about a TV programme). No bio info for a BLP, but very useful if we had multiple secondaries, and the programme does look notable. Widefox; talk 14:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's only incidental mention of the person in TV listings etc. I also agree with the comment at Talk:Craig Graham - why was this accepted from AfC? This is the same WP:SPA WP:COI creator from the previous AfD that has correctly recreated via userfication - the article and its photo has been created by a digital PR company he works with (that had to change username due to username violation), but has not disclosed this COI on her new account. Widefox; talk 09:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep with some details. After the first AfD, this was userfied. The article seems to be better now, but it was a number of issues which the nominator brought up. Still, the news article coupled with inherited notability makes me uncomfortable with simply deleting it or even userfying it again. It really seems like a notable subject with a flawed article in need of someone putting forth the time to research and write. I suggest this: let's keep it for now with a specified time limit. If the article is not improved in terms of asserting and sourcing notability by that time - let's say two weeks from now or something - then we nominate it again for one last time and all of us concerned (Sionk and Widefox) agree to all give a strong recommendation for final deletion. If notability is asserted and sourced by that time, then we leave it. Does this sound like a good way to just settle it? It's already been nominated before so it seems like a somewhat contentious article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony Cortes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Largely unsourced article, hampered by dead links and WP:COI The Banner talk 10:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and seek assistance for improving. Sad that some links have died, but one might suppose they were good once, and their becoming dead does not negate notability. We might certainly hope that Spanish-reading Wikipedians can dig through the sources found in Google News, separate out the false positives, and tell us if WP:GNG is met, as it appers to be... specially as it does appear that we do have still-LIVE links speaking about the Cuban in enough detail,[55][56][57][58][59][60] and it does seem he is a two-time Emmy nominee.[61][62] Such persons usually have coverage enough to meet notability.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The winner of a two regional Emmy's meets WP:ANYBIO. While not Primetime Emmy's, they are still easily a very prestigious award. Mkdwtalk 02:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After going through the Spanish sources I can tell that the subject amply meets WP:GNG, in a very tabloid-ish way of sorts unique to the Hispanic world. Generally, telenovela actors tend to be universally notable, the same way an actor in a major network sitcom also is. Even if they strictly fail WP:ACTOR. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The given sources, even if they are not in English, do support the actor's notability. The article is in need of neutralizing and removal of its more essay-ish elements, but it really should be kept. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Linda Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Marginal reality TV show person. Article is filled with unsourced material that seems to have been created by someone with a COI. Doesn't really have any notability, at least not per Wikipedia notability guidelines. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Average telegenic person lucky enough to be called on to do minute-long soundbites about obvious topics (and judging from the fact that Dateline and 20/20 are now true crime-based shows, they don't call on her anymore). Nothing notable here to make her stand out. Nate • (chatter) 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:BIO. tv career is unremarkable. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pilot & Huxley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N, no significant coverage Revolution1221 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the article doesn't show this yet, Pilot & Huxley has been reviewed by Wired, The New York Review of Books, and Kirkus. I will add these refs to the article, but to my mind, that counts as significant coverage. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have since added these and another ref. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Received reviews from three reliable review sources. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sandstein 09:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hello. We all know that Wikipedia is neither a link farm nor a directory. Stand-alone lists are allowed, yes, but only two items in this list-class page have their own Wikipedia articles (of questionable notability). Those who want to make a few bucks out of the Windows 8 changes should consider advertising elsewhere. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Codename Lisa (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, as the primary author of the article, I find Codename Lisa's accusation that the list is a vehicle for advertisement by the software makers to be a bit offensive. There's no way I, a single person, can possibly hold 18(!) jobs at the same time. In fact, I don't work for any of these companies. I am a web developer and haven't worked on a commercial Windows program in about 8 years, and that was for the ticket/entertainment industry and had nothing to do with Windows 8 Start Menu replacements. Windows 8 didn't even exist back then. Again, I don't work for any of these companies. In fact, if I did, why would I want to list my competitor's products? That makes no sense. I ask that the nominator withdraw this accusation or provide evidence that backs up her acusation.
- Second, whether each individual item on the list has a stand alone article is irrelevant. Which policy says that this is a requirement? There is none. On the contrary, WP:LISTN specifically says, "individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable".
- Third, calling an article a "link farm" because it's well-sourced is bizarre and one of the craziest reasons I've ever seen to delete an article. Articles are supposed to be sourced to with inline citations to reliable sources. That's a best practice. And note that every single sources used in the article are from third-parties, such as Computer World, CNET, PC World, San Francisco Chronicle, Forbes, USA Today, and many more. I happen to believe that all content be sourced, so readers can check for themselves whether the information in an article is accurate. I have thousands of edits to Wikipedia[63] and not once have I ever added content that wasn't directly supported by a reliable source. I once took an almost completely unsourced BLP[64] and rewrote it so that it was fully sourced.[65] That makes me a good editor, not a bad one.
- Fourth and most importantly, the only thing that matters is whether this article meets our general notability guideline. Since the nominator has failed to address this, I will. GNG requires an article receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To prove that the article meets GNG, I offer the following list of secondary reliable sources:
- And note that all of these sources discuss these items as a list.
- A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree that it's useful and so worth keeping. Yahoo agrees that the subject is notable. The Pokki article explains that the Pokki download to restore the Start menu is free, and that Pokki enables desktop applications to be built—like mobile apps—using standard web languages like HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript; Pokki has raised $21M from investors like Google and O'Reilly. Pokki's business model seems to be to make money from its app. store—already Pokki has about 1.5M users. Maybe the list needs to mention why Pokki has become the most notable. Maybe it would be better as a "Comparison of ..." article that compares features of at least some of the items listed. LittleBen (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, LittleBen. If read my nomination again, you will realize that I said nothing about notability at all. Notability a second-tier guideline. The policy that is being violated here is WP:NOT, a pillar-class policy. Please consider studying Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially its "Denying the antecedent" section. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I don't see how this hurts anyone, and knowing these things exist is relevant to understanding the backlash caused by Windows 8's drastic UI change. --uKER (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does this pass GNG? Probably. Does this fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT? Definitely. As it fails WP:LINKFARM, just like the nom says. I see a WP:ITSUSEFUL vote by LittleBen, and a wall of text by the author of the article, plus another non-policy based argument by UKER. There are two bluelinks in the article, which makes it of marginal use anyway (contrary to LittleBen's point). There are probably a thousand different start menu replacements, but a list is not required. A category may suffice, but a category with two entries is fairly pointless anyway. This list is also a perfect target for drive-by advertising. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even close to being indiscriminate. Indiscriminate refers to unrelated or loosely related items. Here are some examples:
- Indiscriminate Lists of Information examples
- Bill, 7, Orange, pedometer, three ring notebook, The Magna Carta, Jerome Lester Horowitz.
- f,e,s,a,gh,l,2,df,4,,fd,a,df,we
- paper clip, bleach, chewing gum, magnifying glass
- Indiscriminate Lists of Information examples
- Each of the three lists were assembled without care or making distinctions. The first, words and/or names were typed as they were thought. The second, random keystrokes on the keyboard with intermittent commas. The third is just an ordinary list of household items.
- Discriminate Lists of Information examples
- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson
- H 1, Li 3, Na 11, K 19, Rb 37, Cs 55, Fr 87
- Mike, Carol, Greg, Marsha, Peter, Jan, Bobby, Cindy, Alice
- Discriminate Lists of Information examples
- These three lists were assembled with thought: The first is the first few Presidents of the United States, the second is the first column of the Periodic table, and the third is a pop-culture reference to The Brady Bunch.
- See WP:DISCRIMINATE for more information.
- With this particular article, list was assembled with thought. The inclusion criteria requires that only Windows 8 Start Menu replacements are allowed and they must have received coverage by secondary reliable sources. So you can't just add any item to the article. It needs to meet the inclusion criteria.
- A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they have reliable coverage? Yes, probably. Is it routine? Most of the time, it is. The majority of the list is for non-notable things anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps so, perhaps not. Either way, that's not a valid reason for deletion. Please see WP:LISTN which says that individual items on a list do not need to be independently notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of that. However, it's still a nail in the coffin of this article, so to speak. I hate the Windows 8 start menu just as much as most tech users, but that doesn't make this a valid list - Wikipedia is not for this sort of thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut it. I've struggled to find a single policy-based reason to delete the article, but it meets all Wikipedia policies that I am aware of. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no, I've cited at least one policy-pased reason (WP:NOT) that this fails (LINKFARM part), and I can argue as much that your approach is a "WP:ITSUSEFUL" or "WP:ILIKEIT" if you're going to try and brush off my concerns like this. Dthomsen8 is yet another person throwing in an ITSUSEFUL vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you've completely turned policy upside down. You are arguing that well-sourced articles should be deleted because they're well-sourced. That's an absolutely insane proposition. Articles are supposed to have inline citations to reliable sources. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE. Yes, every item on the list has an inline citation to a reliable source. That's a good thing.
- Also, I've never said anything about "WP:ITSUSEFUL" or "WP:ILIKEIT". That was someone else. What I said is that the article meets all Wikipedia policies including WP:GNG and that nobody has presented a valid reason to delete the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ample reliable sources have been found which talk about the new menu items in Windows 8. Dream Focus 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. This looks like a stub that could ultimately have the level of information found in the Category:Software comparisons articles. My reservations: in the three months since the last AfD this article hasn't demonstrated movement toward that potential, and the list of names by itself is not very informative, nor a valid WP:LIST article. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. With 21 inline citations, definitely not a stub. USEFUL! Yes, I know that is not a valid reason. Anyway, I want it kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a very useful list at the moment (but there are reports that the forthcoming Blue upgrade might disable these utilities). It's harmless. I don't understand why some people want to destroy a useful resource. John259 (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to Codename Lisa and Lukeno94: Are the latest additions to the article what you were looking for? I'm trying to create a win-win solution that will make everybody happy. LittleBen (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry but I had to remove your addition. I was trying to fix to up so it fits, but that sort of thing just duplicates content from the Pokki and as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists doesn't belong in a list article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Comment: I'm sorry but I don't see any reasons in the MOS page that you cite why such a very brief paragraph—that by no means duplicates the Pokki article—is not permitted in a list article.
- The concluding summary now covers what appear to be the most-reviewed four items—and three sets of comparative reviews have been linked to the individual items, so that the reader can easily compare them and decide between them. Two other popular items, Start8 and StartMenu8, are also linked from the comparative reviews. I Googled for these top six, found—and added—a very negative review of RetroUI. Classic Shell is listed in List of alternative shells for Windows, but does not have an article of its own yet. LittleBen (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well I guess we will just have to disagree then. The MOS for lists shows that they should be lists, there is no provision for trying to pad them out with long descriptions of one of the list items to make the whole list look more encyclopedic when it isn't. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: with Windows 8 pbp 23:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: There is not enough notable content here for a stand alone list article, so I agree that this should be merged into the Windows 8 article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that merging is the right answer either. There's plenty of notable content to write, just a lack of editors to write the content. But Windows 8 is brand new and we have no deadline to finish the article. I've already changed the article to use a table format.[66] I invite other editors to help me fill out this table. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a very useful list. And then, since this is the second nomination to delete the article, a previous attempt obviously already failed. I consider this second attempt a sort of vandalism. And just another thought... the strong language used by user Codename Lisa may be a sign that he/she has, let me put it that way, strong connections with Microsoft. --Krawunsel (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic discussion
|
---|
|
- Merge with Windows 8. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 16:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I've said previously, the nominator has failed to provide a policy-based reason why the article should be deleted. Since then, I've discovered WP:DEL-REASON which lists 14 possible reasons for deletion. Although WP:DEL-REASON says that we are not limited by these 14 reasons, please note that the nominator (as well as anyone else) has failed to provide a reason why this article be deleted. Again, I'm not sure what we should be discussing when nobody can come up with a valid reason to delete the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Strong consensus that he failes the relevant notability guideline ~ mazca talk 23:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hugo Fernández Molina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a football player who has not played in a fully-professional league or represented his country at senior level, as we can see here, also does not meet the general notability guideline. C679 08:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 08:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Debojyoti (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 16:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, failing WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- TV Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references, notability not established following WP:CORP. Gold Standard 07:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. --Eleassar my talk 20:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails GNG. SalHamton (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- George William Burleigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that this person is notable. He fails WP:SOLDIER IMO, as he is only a colonel and I doubt that Ninth Coast Defense would qualify as a large body of troops. There is no evidence in the article that his achievements as a lawyer or civic leader make him notable Gbawden (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A rank doesn't determine whether someone is notable or not. It is determined by reliable sources. An obituary in the New York Times, for instance, denotes notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't have access, and won't pay $4 per article to find out if significant coverage is provided in each article, but a search of the google news archive shows the New York Times has dozens of articles where he is mentioned, most heavily in the early 1930s. Evidently he and his wife were real socialites. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are indications that this person is notable. WP:SOLDIER is an essay and so carries little weight. In any case, this person was not just a soldier but a person of substance acquainted with heads of state. Warden (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please see WP:NOTINHERITED, subject isn't notable themselves just because they are an acquaintance to multiple heads of state. For instance, a long-serving janitor at the White House maybe an acquaintance to numerous Presidents but that doesn't make the person automatically notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED is not a policy. The subject was not a janitor. He was, for example, awarded the Légion d'honneur by the French president. Warden (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please see WP:NOTINHERITED, subject isn't notable themselves just because they are an acquaintance to multiple heads of state. For instance, a long-serving janitor at the White House maybe an acquaintance to numerous Presidents but that doesn't make the person automatically notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are different grades of Légion d'honneur, what grade is it? Please see the note regarding this at WP:SOLDIER. Also, is there a reliable source that verifies this awarding?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is multiple coverage in reliable sources, and he was an important business leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WeakDelete, subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, that being I cannot properly evaluate whether some of those mentions give significant coverage of the subject and/or have the subject as the primary subject of the source due to many of these sources being behind a WP:PAYWALL. Therefore, failing having accessible significant coverage of the subject, I cannot say the individual passes WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore, being a COL does not denote notability as defined in WP:SOLDIER. Moreover, he only received the lowest grade (Chevalier) of Légion d'honneur, which does not provide automatic notability (additional reference).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, sources are not required to be online because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. If someone writes articles from a book in a library or a newspaper archive then that's fine. If you are unable to evaluate the sources then your opinion is of little value because it is not informed. In any case, specific sources are only required for exceptional claims or direct quotations. Nothing here seems so controversial as to warrant such concern. Warden (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that references are not required to be available online, but we are also required to verify that the sources exist; moreover, we are suppose to determine whether the subject is notable as defined by WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:SOLDIER, and whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. As I said, the subject has been mentioned, but it is my opinion based on what I can verify that the subject has not received significant coverage from reliable sources.
- If this coverage does exists, please let me know and provide examples. I can be wrong, I am not infallible.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Sure, Burleigh is not Justin Bieber, but he's far more accomplished, far more notable and substantially more worthy of inclusion here. I consider it bad judgment that someone proposed this for deletion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The NY Times saw fit to write about his life and death. The article does need a rewrite. SalHamton (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, having an obit in the NYT isn't sufficient to denote notability by itself as it falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Otherwise all the service members who received lengthy obits in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other major reliable source news organizations would automatically be considered notable per that reasoning. This would create over six thousand biography articles for U.S. and coalition services members who died during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
- I would completely support that, but then let us then automatically begin a deletion review for all those biographies that were deleted under NOTMEMORIAL.
- If the only significant coverage of the subject was the NYT Obit. then NOTMEMORAL clearly applies.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read this from the NY Times public editor about the criteria used to select who the NY Times write obituaries about. The editor writes:
We choose to write an obituary when it’s clear that the person in question had made a significant impact in a particular field, on the larger society or some segment of it, on the country, or even on the world. If the individual meets that test, then his or her death is news that we feel our national readership should know about.
- The NY Times' obituaries aren't comparable to a local or regional paper's obituaries. They have strict guidelines because it's an international paper with limited space. The most significant paper in the country wrote about his death because of his "significant impact." You seem to think the NY Times writes an obituary for every US soldier. If you do think that then you are incorrect. Thus, I fail to see what this has to do with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. SalHamton (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And did any other major newspaper of the period write an obit regarding the individual? If not, than the subject may not be that notable, and since the NYT also serves as a local paper for the NYC area, it could be viewed as only about a locally notable.
- If the individual was notable outside of their own death than more significant coverage should be easy to find. Rather what we find is a bunch of brief mentions here and there but nothing that I can see that amounts to significant coverage outside of an obit.
- Take the late Lady Thatcher, she has received multiple obits from multiple major news organizations, but before her death she had already received multiple significant coverage sources where she was the primary subject. I do not see that in regards to Burleigh.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not say or mean that obituaries are not evidence of notability. That's because an obituary such as we have here is prima facie evidence of notability. Such obituaries are the best kind of source for our purpose because, by their nature, they give a good summary of the person's complete life, including vital statistics which can be otherwise hard to find, such as the dates of birth and death. Warden (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So the individual is notable for a single event, their death. Don't know but that argument has been used for the reason to delete article, not a reason to denote notability. If the individual was notable during their lifetime, they would have received significant coverage while alive. If the person who is the subject of this AfD is notable, where is the significant coverage of the subject in the years after he died? Why only the obit?
- Furthermore, the NYT states of its obits XYZ, but how do we know that was its policy in the early-mid 20th century when the subject died? Just because the NYT states XYZ doesn't mean that what they write automatically denotes notability.
- Even if I were to concede that the obit constitutes significant coverage, where is the other significant coverage of the subject to show that the person was clearly notable outside of the local area which the NYT serves as a local paper for? Otherwise, all we can verify is a bunch of passing mentions, which if added up into a single source would not be make up a single significant coverage article where the subject of this AfD is the primary subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An obituary of this sort doesn't just cover the immediate cause of death so we have more than one event. We also have other sources. Warden (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what are those other sources where the subject is the primary subject of the source, where the subject has received significant coverage?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SIGCOV does not require sources of that sort, saying that the subject "need not be the main topic of the source material. Warden (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It does require that the subject have received significant coverage, which I have not seen presented.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SIGCOV does not require sources of that sort, saying that the subject "need not be the main topic of the source material. Warden (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what are those other sources where the subject is the primary subject of the source, where the subject has received significant coverage?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An obituary of this sort doesn't just cover the immediate cause of death so we have more than one event. We also have other sources. Warden (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times does do a supplement to honor the war dead, and also did it for 9/11 and other mass killings. This is clearly not one of those special supplements or web only special page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The NY Times' obituaries aren't comparable to a local or regional paper's obituaries. They have strict guidelines because it's an international paper with limited space. The most significant paper in the country wrote about his death because of his "significant impact." You seem to think the NY Times writes an obituary for every US soldier. If you do think that then you are incorrect. Thus, I fail to see what this has to do with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. SalHamton (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you search google books or news for "George W Burleigh" or "George Burleigh" instead of George William Burleigh you can find more on him. For example, his connection to Charles Lindbergh in The Big Jump: Lindbergh and the Great Atlantic Air Race by Richard Bak or an entire section on him in The Minute men of '17 (pages 176-192). You can also see the Princeton Alumni Weekly discussing him being one of four given the Legion on Honor. There are also endless government reports about his successful business there too. SalHamton (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on extensive coverage about him in multiple reliable and verifiable sources, with many more available and not yet included. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Command Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject fails WP:GNG. None of the references constitute significant coverage and the only one that is actually linked is the game's own website.Gold Standard 07:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A Google search indicates that there isn't significant independent coverage. wctaiwan (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. with an option to userfy on request. MBisanz talk 21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam Swandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
User:Hildanknight contested the PROD as "this young footballer has received extensive coverage in the Singapore press". However, if that is true, then surely we would have more than 1 reference in the article. Point: The article still fails WP:GNG and certainly fails WP:NFOOTY. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sure what is meant by "quality" references. I would think coverage in electronic versions of print media is significant enough.Icedwater (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - albeit somewhat reluctantly. I believe there are more references which can be added to prove he has received "significant" coverage. I have to ask User:Sir Sputnik, however, what would we consider to be "reliable" sources? Would websites of state-sanctioned print media count, or print references to specific issues of newspapers? Yet I cannot do it all myself and it seems no one else is willing to. Indeed, in the time elapsed between this article's creation and its flagging for deletion, I doubt there have been "significant" changes. I agree, however, that it fails WP:NFOOTY, because Adam Swandi has not yet played in a professional league at adult level. Since it precludes youth tournaments, even at the international level, I suggest we take this article down for the time being. Question: Is it possible to save this in some hidden corner so that when he begins his professional career, I don't have to trawl the web for old links? Icedwater (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Userfy or Incubate. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The question is not how many references are currently in the article. The question is how many quality references are available but not in the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy for the time being... Until he actually passes WP:NFOOTY. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy per Bonkers the Clown. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage is trivial at best. GiantSnowman 17:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete trivial mentions don't establish notability. SalHamton (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy until WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY is met. Mentoz86 (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing more than passing references Spiderone 10:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 21:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RoweBots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find nothing except press releases. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Amid the press releases in this search result, I see some reliable source coverage (EETimes, Waterloo Record, ITworld...) granted, some of those are trade publications though. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly. The article's claim of 'industry firsts' (developed a number of industry firsts in the real-time and embedded operating system space.)
aside: Class! What function does the phrase "system space" serve in this sentence?
are unreferenced and unconfirmable in Google News and Scholar searches. I did find a new product announcement in a Books search for "Multiprocessor Toolsmiths", but nothing that suggests that they have ever had the kind of significant impact needed to make this business something you'd expect to have its own article in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I note there are other industry firsts listed on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 21:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on my comments above. Talk page supports keeping, and Google News archives shows significant coverage in reliable sources. As I mentioned previously, many of those sources are trade publications, but I don't see that as a problem for WP:V and WP:RS. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tanya Berenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable "Gymnastics Director." Her claim to notability is that she competed in the Junior Olympics. The whole page is largely uncited, filled with promotional content. Editor likely has a COI considering the other pages he/she created. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Insignificant coverage. Sources only mention her in passing. Achievments not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.88.181.2 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She is mentioned in reliable sources only in passing in connection with the Los Angeles School of Gymnastics. That school may be notable; so if a neutral, well-referenced article about it can be created, and then a redirect might be appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete :Not notable. Guidelines for gymnastics notability for non-athletes are coach of several notable athletes. Her athletes do not meet the notability criteria outlined here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Gymnastics Cannot document coaching an Olympic, World, or even National Champion. Never official head coach of an Olympic or World Championships team. Never competed in Youth Olympics. Junior Olympics is not the same. Los Angeles School of Gymnastics has never had a notable gymnast. Being related to a coach of a national champion is not proof of notability. Recent edits made by page author continue to fail to document significant coverage. Her mentions in the article are trivial and are in promotional material. And if organizing a charity event with celebrities is proof of notability, then that means that every employee of Rogers and Cowan can qualify for a wikipedia page. [User:Highvalyrian|Highvalyrian]] (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing she has done makes her notable, and coverage does not rate general notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was incubate. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can now be found at the Incubator at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Educated Binani - Rajasthani Film. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Educated Binani - Rajasthani Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like a non-notable cinema which doesn't have significant coverage in Reliable sources. Amartyabag TALK2ME 12:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate for a short while per being slightly TOO SOON (after first moving article to proper title Educated Binani), as it seems this film had a limited premiere on March 10, and is set for theatrical release in April 2013 and, as with most Indian films, the soundtrack has already been released. Searches for sources are complicated by the find sources assigned by the AFD template being set for an improper article title, thus giving poor results. This discussion will greatly benefit by input from editors better able to find and offer Hindi sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate per Schmidt. I've added what little I was able to find, but none of it was via sources that would show notability. I did a search with the Hindi on the page and Google Translate, but couldn't find much but then there's a limit to how much I can do with that. In any case, I've revamped the page enough to where there would be a good start for when it does get the coverage necessary to pass WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate per Schmidt. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Orient Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources, all text generated by machine translation Furious Style (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 3. Snotbot t • c » 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Poorly written is not grounds for deletion, please see WP:UGLY for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Secondly, while the article lacks sources, it does not mean they are not out there. If you conduct WP:BEFORE, you will find that the Orient Fair has been covered in several books: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. Also when conducting BEFORE, you should search the hebrew name of the festival as well for more results; Yerid Hamizrach: [72] [73] [74]. I found most of this in less than 5 minutes. I'm sure looking around even more will net other results. I would also be interested to see other non-English sources which I'm certain there would be more than the English considering the country of the fair. Mkdwtalk 04:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - certainly a Notable event. We know a lot about the 1930s in Europe, but precious little in other parts of the world. The Artical might be better dealling with all the similar events that decade (Levant fairs) but I don't know what references are available for all of them. I also agree that the text needs improving, but that is no reason to delete.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've never questioned the notability of the article, only that there is not a single sentence which passes either criteria of 1) that it is sourced, verifiable, 2) that it is in English. Unless someone corrects these problems I will stub the article down to a sentence if it is not deleted. Furious Style (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that would be a good thing to do, but put a warning on the talk page and give it a month, eh?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article needs a tremendous amount of work, no arguments there. The fact that it's notable and has sources (not in the article but exist) suggests this article could easily be improved is should not be deleted. Mkdwtalk 21:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that would be a good thing to do, but put a warning on the talk page and give it a month, eh?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Horribly written. Requires refs. But they exist. As long as they exist, and qualify the article for GNG, the fact that they are not in the article, or that the article is horribly written, is no reason to delete. Even nom admits that the article refs exist and that it is notable. Thus, it is not a candidate for AfD. AfD is not for cleanup. I would suggest nom withdraw his nomination.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Ewan Dobson. J04n(talk page) 10:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Red Army Love Potion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a non-notable musical recording. Fails WP:NALBUM. - MrX 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ewan Dobson. No coverage found in reliable sources for this release; plausible search term. Gong show 21:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ewan Dobson. A non-notable album, and no content to preserve apart from track listing (which I'm not convinced we need, and isn't referenced to a reliable source). Whether Ewan Dobson is notable is another question. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Although not the strongest endorsement of an article AfD has ever produced, the first delete opinion was based on a vandalised version of the page that doesn't relate to the article content in its present state, while Listmeister's refutation of the other delete !vote is sufficiently convincing that only keep recommendations and neutral comments remain. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Movie2k.to (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. Article shows no context. TBrandley 18:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only no context, no content. It's a blank page. See no reliable secondary sources establishing notability. Fladrif (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Two IP editors removed the prose content from the article. The deleted content provided the site's Alexa ranking as an assertion of notability. A GNews archives search provides several hits, but most of the articles are in German. I can't easily assess them for quality or depth of coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not appropriate to simply blank an article. I've reverted one the removals which restores the semblance of an article and the assertion of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - And weak because I'm relying on machine translation as a search for sources turns up German language sites. I'm providing links to Bing translated versions. It would be helpful for somebody with some proficiency in German to review this. I'm not even sure if this is a reliable source, but the site is the primary topic. Also this from the same site. And in no particular order, [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Coverage for movie piracy websites like this only get coverage if there have been any legal issues. There has not been any and no significant source would ever review an illegal website. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article, and have someone translate the German Wikipedia version, there's lots more info there. Strongly disagree with SL93's reason for deletion on the basis of the apparent syllogism:
P1) no reliable source would cover an illegal website
P2) if it doesn't get covered it's not Notable
therefore Q) illegal websites will never be Notable enough for an article.
This logic, taken to its conclusion would produce an unnecessary system bias against reporting the darker side of the internet. We should show the Ugly as well as the Beautiful. Listmeister (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Comment: Here are machine translations of the two news articles cited in the German WP article (the third reference is to the company's web site): Die Welt translation & Wirtschafts Woche translation. The machine translations give an idea about the degree of the coverage (significant or not). The entire Die Welt article is about Movie2k.to. However, Movie2k.to is only mentioned in a small paragraph of the Wirtschafts Woche article.
- - Of the 8 sites listed by Whpq, above, the following 5 article translations contain useful (but notable — I don't know) information (each of the following articles is entirely about Movie2k.to): 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
- - Also, a translation of the German WP article won't help much since most of that content already appears on (or appeared and was removed from) the current article. The content in the German article that's not present in the English article is the "Concept" and "Legal" sections, which were mostly removed as unsourced promotional language.
- - From my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (web), the relevant notability guideline, this article is right on the edge. My comments should be construed as concensus-neutral. - tucoxn\talk 22:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Sesame Street. MBisanz talk 21:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Healthy Habits for Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed by IP without comment. Non-noteworthy initiative by a children's television show.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 07:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what can be sourced into article on Seasme street.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into article on Sesame Street as a matter of editorial judgement. I don't think the sources are enough to establish independent notability, but even if the topic is notable that does not require that it have a separate article. --Boson (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Sesame Street, not enough notable for a separate article, worthy of mention there. Cavarrone (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it does not seem to fit anywhere in particular, and is not inherently notable, a merger seems sensible. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Proposals to merge or expand the coverage of the list should be discussed on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of defunct Idaho sports teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One of these lists that is better served of as a category, if even that all the teams listed have dubious notability or redlinks and I don't see this list expanded Delete Secret account 00:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge Notable teams and sporting history could be included in Idaho#Sports. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 07:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This list is really the intersection of "defunct" and "Idaho," while disregarding the specific sport. You could also have a list of "defunct minor league baseball teams in any state" or "list of defunct and extant basketball teams in Idaho" or many other possibilities. I don't see a real reason to slice it this way. Like the nom said, categories are a better way to help readers find the articles they are interested in. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not seeing a valid reason being offered for deletion. The list presents context that categories cannot (e.g. lineage). If the nom believes the linked teams currently listed are of dubious notability, nominate them first for deletion. If sufficient are deleted, then this article can be revisited. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Clarityfiend. As to Mr. Dufour's position, in most sports you will find too many defunct teams to put them all in one list. Grouping them by state is a straightforward unambiguous way to group them. "I wonder what major sports teams have been in Omaha. Let's see... list of defuncts Sports teams in Nebraska... that's what I need." You see what I mean? Listmeister (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to List of professional sports teams in Idaho and expand coverage to both active and defunct teams. For comparison, List of professional sports teams in Illinois covers both active and defunct teams in a single list, even though Illinois is a much more populous state which has had many more pro sports teams. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Miracles Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a press release type article about a non-notable report by some charity. Atlantima (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While it seems to be a noble cause, I can find nothing to show that this report received any notice or coverage that would have it passing notability guidelines. On a somewhat side note, I'll be nominating a related article, Critical Containment Methodology for deletion under the same rationale. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:V. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Has received significant coverage, and is no longer inactive. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Plow United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A defunct band that never achieved more than a regional reputation isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNate (talk • contribs)
- Keep - Actually, the article states that Plow reformed in 2011, which I didn't realize. Listing them as "hardcore punk" is a bit of a laugh. Fairly large underground pop-punk band of the 1990s second wave of American punk. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No longer defunct, it appears, but regardless there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1. Beyond local items [81][82][83][84][85][86], there are two Punknews.org staff reviews [87][88] (considered reliable by WikiProject Albums), interviews in professional publications [89][90], along with some shorter pieces [91][92][93]. Gong show 02:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Gongshow. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The band has received plenty of coverage, e.g. (some are probably already listed above) [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]. Enough to have a decently-sourced article. --Michig (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.